OC carry caused some problems for me today

[Titanium_Frost]

OC an AK or AR in your yard. See how your nosey neighbor and clueless LEOs like that!

 

[Oliver]

All I have is a head shake.

 

[jojoa55]

OC an AK or AR in your yard. See how your nosey neighbor and clueless LEOs like that!

I'd rep you but I have to spread it around some more before I can.

 

[canav844]

Firearms encounters are not in the top 100 things that officers have to deal with and so they don't have to know the law. They can say anything they want to you without fear of reprisal.

Firearms are apart of 100% of LEO calls and LEOs carry a gun everyday they're on the job; you bet your ass they should all know the law about carry and use of firearms just as much as they know what the speedlimit is, when to use a turn signal and what a class of drivers license lets you do. An officer not knowing the ins and outs of tax law I get, but when they use and carry gun everyday there is plain and simple no excuse (negligence is a reason not an excuse) for not knowing the law.

And if the officer is unable to look in the code book to confirm what his limits are and needs the supervisor to come out for him to get such a simple task accomplished let the complaint be right on top of his personnel file. Not to mention being incapable of doing his job without alienating the community he is serving and deliberately agitating an armed individual.

Document and follow through, if an ignorant neighbor calls it in fine, it happens all the time, he has to respond, but how he handles things needs major improvement.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...our_rights_what_to_do_when_leo_stops_you.html

 

[Scutter01]

Firearms are apart of 100% of LEO calls and LEOs carry a gun everyday they're on the job; you bet your ass they should all know the law about carry and use of firearms just as much as they know what the speedlimit is, when to use a turn signal and what a class of drivers license lets you do. An officer not knowing the ins and outs of tax law I get, but when they use and carry gun everyday there is plain and simple no excuse (negligence is a reason not an excuse) for not knowing the law.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...our_rights_what_to_do_when_leo_stops_you.html

I have it on good authority from at least two different LEOs right here on INGO that gun calls are not in the top 100. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[spark]

I have it on good authority from at least two different LEOs right here on INGO that gun calls are not in the top 100. I don't know what else to tell you.

I think you know what he's saying, but in case you don't. He is saying that if LE carry a gun they should know all of the laws on guns. They have guns 100% of the time they are on duty, so they should know the laws as they apply to them and civilians. I agree.

 

[canav844]

I have it on good authority from at least two different LEOs right here on INGO that gun calls are not in the top 100. I don't know what else to tell you.

Then they need to revisit the academy and go through FTO again, they have a gun on they're hip every call they respond to. If they don't understand that and use good situational awareness and retention skills they're liable to be shot with their own gun. They carry a gun they need to know and understand the law about carrying it (they need to know stow it in a lock box before entering the jail booking areas) they need to know and understand the law about using it; most are aware of TN v. Garner and you can just shoot someone because they turn and walk away or even just for running. There is no reason they can't be aware of cases such as State v. Washington. They have a gun too there is no excuse for them to be ignorant in the laws surrounding it.

 

[spark]

Furthermore I agree with clt46910. Ignorance of laws is unacceptable at that level. I don't get paid to make mistakes at my job. I'm also required to keep up with a changing rules, regulations, and technologies.

 

[cornfused]

I think he odviously new the laws because he didn't do anything (unless I missed something). I think he just likes being a Arse

 

[Scutter01]

I think you know what he's saying, but in case you don't. He is saying that if LE carry a gun they should know all of the laws on guns. They have guns 100% of the time they are on duty, so they should know the laws as they apply to them and civilians. I agree.

I know what he's saying and I know what you're saying. I'm telling you that I've been told that the LEOs who don't know the law just don't have the time to learn it because there's just too much of it to know, and since it's not in the top 100 types of encounters, there's no incentive to learn it. It's not important enough. But I've never been a cop, so what do I know, right?

 

[StarbaseSSD]

<quote>If an officer came up to me IN MY OWN YARD and tole me to show him my LTCH, I would politely decline. If he demanded it, I would politely inform him that Indiana law allows one to carry on their own property without a license. If it went beyond that, I would shut up, let them do whatever they wanted (interpret - not resist, while at the same time not giving permission), and find a good lawyer (Guy). I would then sue them for violating Indiana law regarding carrying a firearm.</quote>

+1

 

[Josh Ward]

Wow, just Wow.

 

[goColt]

I know what he's saying and I know what you're saying. I'm telling you that I've been told that the LEOs who don't know the law just don't have the time to learn it because there's just too much of it to know, and since it's not in the top 100 types of encounters, there's no incentive to learn it. It's not important enough. But I've never been a cop, so what do I know, right?

This is most likely true, at least in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

As stated earlier: If handled in a courteous but firm manner, this could be a teachable moment for at least this officer in particular and possibly the entire department if a complaint filed against him. I would say THAT would give him an incentive to learn what laws he is enforcing. If this doesn't work an OP-ED piece might be in order.

In addition to this officer's ignorance of Indiana gun laws and his incredible arrogance, is the fact that it seems he is also ignorant of property rights.

On the brighter side, at least he didn't threaten to execute the OP.

 

[canav844]

I know what he's saying and I know what you're saying. I'm telling you that I've been told that the LEOs who don't know the law just don't have the time to learn it because there's just too much of it to know, and since it's not in the top 100 types of encounters, there's no incentive to learn it. It's not important enough. But I've never been a cop, so what do I know, right?

All the more reason for those who are being unecessarily hassled or discriminated against for actions that are completely legal to be filing complaints and civil suits for actual damages that occur when elevated to that point so that there is incentive to learn by those who wish to not only project their ignorance but also do so in a manner that makes the job harder for every single other officer on that department and in this case as it's on the internet, it's probably making life tougher for officers across the state based on how fast this thread is moving and how it will stick in the back of someone's mind the next encounter they have, even if the officer makes it a positive encounter it may be off to a more difficult start. Any time the OP has contact with this department again, I doubt it will be far from his mind.

The officer and supervisors actions beyond the knowledge of the law point to larger problems at hand here that won't be addressed unless the department is forced to look at them.

 

[greyhound47]

Thanks for the support guys. I knew I was right and still do. I handled myself as calmly as I could and ended up winning the arguement (I didn't go to jail or get beat up). The supervisor was smart enough to know that the whole situation had been mishandled by the very young officer.

With that said, I am still trying to decide how to proceed if at all. I used to be a fighter but now I just want people like my neighbors to leave me the F&^% alone. I KNOW the officer got a talking to by the sargeant. I know he learned from this. I just really wish I could have gotten an apology for how I was spoken to and treated. I am a professional with a perfectly clean record who was doing NOTHING wrong when I was approached on my property and severely hassled. I know that if it was dark and neighbors were not watching that this would have been FAR worse. That is what makes me want to carry it further.

I have a friend on the FWPD and want to talk with him before I do anything more. I don't want to fight just for the fight. I want to be sure that it will be positive and productive before I move on.

 

[WebSnyper]

I know what he's saying and I know what you're saying. I'm telling you that I've been told that the LEOs who don't know the law just don't have the time to learn it because there's just too much of it to know, and since it's not in the top 100 types of encounters, there's no incentive to learn it. It's not important enough. But I've never been a cop, so what do I know, right?

Well, since it was a non emergency and he was about to step foot on someone's private property to "engage" them, I'd think the officer would have time to call in for some assistance or look up the law before doing so. Better yet, the dispatcher who took the call should have been able to inform the neighbor who called that it is not illegal.

 

[hoosierdoc]

We may be missing something. Were you stepping across a sidewalk or turning around in the street? Technically those are public places and would require a LTCH, right?

What were you wearing also? If you were in a speedo and mid-riff shirt, then the officer behaved appropriately. I just think we're inferring too much in his thread.

 

[WebSnyper]

Thanks for the support guys. I knew I was right and still do. I handled myself as calmly as I could and ended up winning the arguement (I didn't go to jail or get beat up). The supervisor was smart enough to know that the whole situation had been mishandled by the very young officer.

With that said, I am still trying to decide how to proceed if at all. I used to be a fighter but now I just want people like my neighbors to leave me the F&^% alone. I KNOW the officer got a talking to by the sargeant. I know he learned from this. I just really wish I could have gotten an apology for how I was spoken to and treated. I am a professional with a perfectly clean record who was doing NOTHING wrong when I was approached on my property and severely hassled. I know that if it was dark and neighbors were not watching that this would have been FAR worse. That is what makes me want to carry it further.

I have a friend on the FWPD and want to talk with him before I do anything more. I don't want to fight just for the fight. I want to be sure that it will be positive and productive before I move on.

I can perfectly understand your position, but I don't think that filing a complaint would amount to picking a fight. It would show them that you were not going to just take what they did without standing up for yourself.

Did the supervisor conduct himself well during the event? If so, then clearly stating that in your complaint would be a good thing to do as well.

I'm curious did the officers ever go to the neighbor? It would have been nice if the supervisor would have set the neighbor straight.

I'd start carrying one on each hip and wave at the neighbor every time I saw them after this.

 

[Scutter01]

Well, since it was a non emergency and he was about to step foot on someone's private property to "engage" them, I'd think the officer would have time to call in for some assistance or look up the law before doing so. Better yet, the dispatcher who took the call should have been able to inform the neighbor who called that it is not illegal.

One would think so, but obviously that doesn't happen (or at least didn't happen here). Clearly there must be some explanation for this gross incompetence.

 

[StarbaseSSD]

Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.